Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Your Brain Has Gray Matter, and Why You Should Use It (Darwinian Evolution's Foolishness)
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/13/2006 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

Posted on 01/14/2006 8:31:15 PM PST by bondserv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-404 last
To: Creationist
It's evidence that birds have the genes that are necessary for teeth, and that some birds can be tricked into expressing this gene during development.

It's also evidence that these teeth are like those of dinosaurs, not like those of mammals, fish, or amphibians.

It is an observed fact that no modern bird has teeth.

So, an obvious question would be, "why do birds have unexpressed genes for dinosaur-like teeth?"

There are enough fossils that are hard to classify as "birds with teeth and bony tails" or as "dinosaurs with feathers" to make for an obvious answer.

...Variations within kinds are possible and it involves loss of information not gaining. So having the gene that does not produce the product is not evolving, or evidence that it was a lizard..

I'm not a "baraminologist", so please spell out what the "kinds" are in this discussion.

It's also not at all obvious that there was a loss of information here; all that's been observed is that some genes aren't expressed. So the information needed to make teeth wasn't lost. All we can say is that it is isn't used - this could easily be because of more information, in the form of new genes actually turning the development of teeth off.

Why isn't this evolution? If there were birds with teeth, and those without, living today, wouldn't they be classified as different species? Again, you're going to have to be specific about what "kinds" refers to here.

Summarizing. I do consider this experiment as showing that ancestors to hens had teeth. And I do consider the presence or absence of teeth as sufficient difference to call the ancestor and the modern forms different species. Hence, an example of evolution.

401 posted on 01/20/2006 10:52:31 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Kinds is to a creationist as species is to an evolutionist. The Arctic rabbit is a kind of rabbit to a creationist, it is a species to an evolutionist. The Arctic rabbit can no longer breed with the southern , but the Arctic rabbit can breed with the northern rabbit and the northern rabbit can breed with the southern rabbit. Rabbits only breed with rabbits. So if a bird has a gene for teeth it can only reproduce with that kind of bird teeth or no teeth.

From my interpretations, I use the Bible as a historical source of fossil interpretation. The Great Flood of Noah's day explains all the sedimentary rock and fossils we see before us.

-------------------------THE FOSSIL RECORD-------------------------

..95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish.
Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.75%)
95% of the remaining .025% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%).
The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.) 95% of the mammal fossils were deposited during the Ice Age.
The fossil record is best understood as the result of a marine cataclysm that utterly annihilated the continents and land dwellers (Genesis 7:18-24 II Peter 3:6) from The Young Earth by John D. Morris p. 70

From what I have read there is not enough complete vertebrate fossils to classify much of anything except dead animals. This is one reason that many believe that the evolutionary theory is speculative in the observation of transitional forms.For another humans hardly understand DNA, why they have unexpressed genes is unknown, and can only be speculative when explaining why.
Dinosaur like teeth would be that the creator saw something that works and decided not to change it. Just because several animals have a bone structure that is similar in no way is a case for evolution.
Variation with in a kind (species) is possible. We see it before us everyday.
402 posted on 01/22/2006 4:00:08 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

"It's always the beginning assumption; then they look for a way to make the pieces fit, no matter how tortured a path it requires."

We always got in trouble for working backwards from the answer in math class. For them it seems like the standard method.


403 posted on 01/22/2006 4:22:35 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

"missed a period" placemarker


404 posted on 08/17/2006 8:28:55 AM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-404 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson